Applied Bayesian Analyses in R

Part2

Author

Sven De Maeyer

WAMBS checklist

When to Worry and How to Avoid Misuse of Bayesian Statistics

by Laurent Smeets and Rens van der Schoot

Before estimating the model:

  1. Do you understand the priors?

After estimation before inspecting results:

  1. Does the trace-plot exhibit convergence?
  2. Does convergence remain after doubling the number of iterations?
  3. Does the posterior distribution histogram have enough information?
  4. Do the chains exhibit a strong degree of autocorrelation?
  5. Do the posterior distributions make substantive sense?

Understanding the exact influence of the priors

  1. Do different specification of the multivariate variance priors influence the results?
  2. Is there a notable effect of the prior when compared with non-informative priors?
  3. Are the results stable from a sensitivity analysis?
  4. Is the Bayesian way of interpreting and reporting model results used?

Tutorial source: https://www.rensvandeschoot.com/brms-wambs/ Alternatives exist as well like the BARG framework (Kruschke, J.K. Bayesian Analysis Reporting Guidelines. Nat Hum Behav 5, 1282–1291 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01177-7)

WAMBS Template to use

  • File called WAMBS_workflow_MarathonData.qmd (quarto document)

  • Click here for the Quarto version

  • Create your own project and project folder

  • Copy the template and rename it

  • We will go through the different parts in the slide show

  • You can apply/adapt the code in the template

  • To render the document properly with references, you also need the references.bib file

Side-path: projects in RStudio and the here package

If you do not know how to use Projects in RStudio or the here package, these two sources might be helpfull:

Projects: https://youtu.be/MdTtTN8PUqU?si=mmQGlU063EMt86B2

here package: https://youtu.be/oh3b3k5uM7E?si=0-heLJXfFVLtTohh

Preparations for applying it to Marathon model

Packages needed:

library(here)
library(tidyverse)
library(brms)
library(bayesplot)
library(ggmcmc)
library(patchwork)
library(priorsense)

Preparations for applying it to Marathon model

Load the dataset and the model:

load(
  file = here("Presentations", "MarathonData.RData")
)

MarathonTimes_Mod2 <-
  readRDS(file = 
            here("Presentations",
              "Output",
              "MarathonTimes_Mod2.RDS")
          )

Focus on the priors before estimation

Remember: priors come in many disguises

Uninformative/Weakly informative

When objectivity is crucial and you want let the data speak for itself…

Informative

When including significant information is crucial

  • previously collected data
  • results from former research/analyses
  • data of another source
  • theoretical considerations
  • elicitation

brms defaults

  • Weakly informative priors

  • If dataset is big, impact of priors is minimal

  • But, always better to know what you are doing!

  • Complex models might run into convergence issues \(\rightarrow\) specifying more informative priors might help!

So, how to deviate from the defaults?

Check priors used by brms

Function: get_prior( )

Remember our model 2 for Marathon Times:

\[\begin{aligned} & \text{MarathonTimeM}_i \sim N(\mu,\sigma_e)\\ & \mu = \beta_0 + \beta_1*\text{km4week}_i + \beta_2*\text{sp4week}_i \end{aligned}\]

get_prior(
  MarathonTimeM ~ 1 + km4week + sp4week, 
  data = MarathonData
)

Check priors used by brms

  • prior: type of prior distribution
  • class: parameter class (with b being population-effects)
  • coef: name of the coefficient within parameter class
  • group: grouping factor for group-level parameters (when using mixed effects models)
  • resp : name of the response variable when using multivariate models
  • lb & ub: lower and upper bound for parameter restriction

Visualizing priors

The best way to make sense of the priors used is visualizing them!

Many options:

See WAMBS template!

There we demonstrate the use of ggplot2, metRology, ggtext and patchwork to visualize the priors.

Visualizing priors

library(metRology)
library(ggplot2)
library(ggtext)
library(patchwork)

# Setting a plotting theme
theme_set(theme_linedraw() +
            theme(text = element_text(family = "Times", size = 8),
                  panel.grid = element_blank(),
                  plot.title = element_markdown())
)

# Generate the plot for the prior of the Intercept (mu)
Prior_mu <- ggplot( ) +
  stat_function(
    fun = dt.scaled,    # We use the dt.scaled function of metRology
    args = list(df = 3, mean = 199.2, sd = 24.9), # 
    xlim = c(120,300)
  ) +
  scale_y_continuous(name = "density") +
  labs(title = "Prior for the intercept",
       subtitle = "student_t(3,199.2,24.9)")

# Generate the plot for the prior of the error variance (sigma)
Prior_sigma <- ggplot( ) +
  stat_function(
    fun = dt.scaled,    # We use the dt.scaled function of metRology
    args = list(df = 3, mean = 0, sd = 24.9), # 
    xlim = c(0,6)
  ) +
  scale_y_continuous(name = "density") +
  labs(title = "Prior for the residual variance",
       subtitle = "student_t(3,0,24.9)")

# Generate the plot for the prior of the effects of independent variables
Prior_betas <- ggplot( ) +
  stat_function(
    fun = dnorm,    # We use the normal distribution
    args = list(mean = 0, sd = 10), # 
    xlim = c(-20,20)
  ) +
  scale_y_continuous(name = "density") +
  labs(title = "Prior for the effects of independent variables",
       subtitle = "N(0,10)")

Prior_mu + Prior_sigma + Prior_betas +
  plot_layout(ncol = 3)

Probability density plots for the different priors used in the example model

Understanding priors… another example

Experimental study (pretest - posttest design) with 3 conditions:

  • control group;
  • experimental group 1;
  • experimental group 2.

Model:

\[\begin{aligned} & Posttest_{i} \sim N(\mu,\sigma_{e_{i}})\\ & \mu = \beta_0 + \beta_1*\text{Pretest}_{i} + \beta_2*\text{Exp_cond1}_{i} + \beta_3*\text{Exp_cond2}_{i} \end{aligned}\]

Our job: coming up with priors that reflect that we expect both conditions to have a positive effect (hypothesis based on literature) and no indications that one experimental condition will outperform the other.

Understanding priors… another example

  • Assuming pre- and posttest scores are standardized
  • Assuming no increase between pre- and posttest in control condition

Understanding priors… another example

  • Assuming a strong correlation between pre- and posttest

Understanding priors… another example

  • Assuming a small effect of experimental conditions
  • No difference between both experimental conditions

Remember Cohen’s d: 0.2 = small effect size; 0.5 = medium effect size; 0.8 or higher = large effect size

Setting custom priors in brms


Setting our custom priors can be done with set_prior( ) command


E.g., change the priors for the beta’s (effects of km4week and sp4week):


Custom_priors <- 
  c(
    set_prior(
      "normal(0,10)", 
      class = "b", 
      coef = "km4week"),
    set_prior(
      "normal(0,10)", 
      class = "b", 
      coef = "sp4week")
    )

Prior Predictive Check


Did you set sensible priors?


  • Simulate data based on the model and the priors


  • Visualize the simulated data and compare with real data


  • Check if the plot shows impossible simulated datasets

Prior Predictive Check in brms


Step 1: Fit the model with custom priors with option sample_prior="only"


Fit_Model_priors <- 
  brm(
    MarathonTimeM ~ 1 + km4week + sp4week, 
    data = MarathonData,
    prior = Custom_priors,
    backend = "cmdstanr",
    cores = 4,
    sample_prior = "only"
    )

Prior Predictive Check in brms


Step 2: visualize the data with the pp_check( ) function


set.seed(1975)

pp_check(
  Fit_Model_priors, 
  ndraws = 300) # number of simulated datasets you wish for

Check some summary statistics

  • How are summary statistics of simulated datasets (e.g., median, min, max, …) distributed over the datasets?

  • How does that compare to our real data?

  • Use type = "stat" argument within pp_check()

pp_check(Fit_Model_priors, 
         type = "stat", 
         stat = "median")

Your Turn

  • Your data and model

  • Perform a prior predictive check

  • If necessary re-think your priors and check again

Focus on convergence of the model (before interpreting the model!)

Does the trace-plot exhibits convergence?


Create custom trace-plots (aka caterpillar plots) with ggs( ) function from ggmcmc package

Model_chains <- ggs(MarathonTimes_Mod2)

Model_chains %>%
  filter(Parameter %in% c(
          "b_Intercept", 
          "b_km4week", 
          "b_sp4week", 
          "sigma"
          )
  ) %>%
  ggplot(aes(
    x   = Iteration,
    y   = value, 
    col = as.factor(Chain)))+
  geom_line() +
  facet_grid(Parameter ~ .,
             scale  = 'free_y',
             switch = 'y') +
  labs(title = "Caterpillar Plots for the parameters",
       col   = "Chains")

Caterpillar plots for the parameters in the model

Does convergence remain after doubling the number of iterations?


Re-fit the model with more iterations


Check trace-plots again


Warning

First consider the need to do this! If you have a complex model that already took a long time to run, this check will take at least twice as much time…

Your Turn

  • Your data and model
  • Do the first checks on the model convergence

R-hat statistics

Sampling of parameters done by:

  • multiple chains
  • multiple iterations within chains

If variance between chains is big \(\rightarrow\) NO CONVERGENCE

R-hat (\(\widehat{R}\)) : compares the between- and within-chain estimates for model parameters

R-hat statistics

  • \(\widehat{R}\) < 1.015 for each parameter estimate

  • at least 4 chains are recommended

  • Effective Sample Size (ESS) > 400 to rely on \(\widehat{R}\)

R-hat in brms

mcmc_rhat() function from the bayesplot package

mcmc_rhat(
  brms::rhat(MarathonTimes_Mod2), 
  size = 3
  )+ 
  yaxis_text(hjust = 1)  # to print parameter names

Your Turn

  • Your data and model

  • Check the R-hat statistics

Autocorrelation

  • Sampling of parameter values are not independent!

  • So there is autocorrelation

  • But you don’t want too much impact of autocorrelation

  • 2 approaches to check this:

    • ratio of the effective sample size to the total sample size
    • plot degree of autocorrelation

Ratio effective sample size / total sample size

  • Should be higher than 0.1 (Gelman et al., 2013)

  • Visualize making use of the mcmc_neff( ) function from bayesplot

mcmc_neff(
  neff_ratio(MarathonTimes_Mod2)
  ) + 
  yaxis_text(hjust = 1)  # to print parameter names

Plot degree of autocorrelation

  • Visualize making use of the mcmc_acf( ) function
mcmc_acf(
  as.array(MarathonTimes_Mod2), 
  regex = "b") # to plot only the parameters starting with b (our beta's)

Your Turn

  • Your data and model

  • Check the autocorrelation

Rank order plots

  • additional way to assess the convergence of MCMC

  • if the algorithm converged, plots of all chains look similar

mcmc_rank_hist(
  MarathonTimes_Mod2, 
  regex = "b" # only intercept and beta's
  )

Your Turn

  • Your data and model

  • Check the rank order plots

Focus on the Posterior

Does the posterior distribution histogram have enough information?

  • Histogram of posterior for each parameter

  • Have clear peak and sliding slopes

Plotting the posterior distribution histogram


Step 1: create a new object with ‘draws’ based on the final model


posterior_PD <- as_draws_df(MarathonTimes_Mod2)

Plotting the posterior distribution histogram


Step 2: create histogram making use of that object


post_intercept <- 
  posterior_PD %>%
  select(b_Intercept) %>%
  ggplot(aes(x = b_Intercept)) +
  geom_histogram() +
  ggtitle("Intercept") 

post_km4week <- 
  posterior_PD %>%
  select(b_km4week) %>%
  ggplot(aes(x = b_km4week)) +
  geom_histogram() +
  ggtitle("Beta km4week") 

post_sp4week <- 
  posterior_PD %>%
  select(b_sp4week) %>%
  ggplot(aes(x = b_sp4week)) +
  geom_histogram() +
  ggtitle("Beta sp4week")

Plotting the posterior distribution histogram


Step 3: print the plot making use of patchwork ’s workflow to combine plots 

post_intercept + post_km4week + post_sp4week +
  plot_layout(ncol = 3)

Posterior Predictive Check

  • Generate data based on the posterior probability distribution

  • Create plot of distribution of y-values in these simulated datasets

  • Overlay with distribution of observed data

using pp_check() again, now with our model

pp_check(MarathonTimes_Mod2, 
         ndraws = 100)

Posterior Predictive Check

  • We can also focus on some summary statistics (like we did with prior predictive checks as well)
pp_check(MarathonTimes_Mod2, 
         ndraws = 300,
         type = "stat",
         stat = "median")

Your Turn

  • Your data and model

  • Focus on the posterior and do some checks!

Prior sensibility analyses

Why prior sensibility analyses?

  • Often we rely on ‘arbitrary’ chosen (default) weakly informative priors

  • What is the influence of the prior (and the likelihood) on our results?

  • You could ad hoc set new priors and re-run the analyses and compare (a lot of work, without strict sytematical guidelines)

  • Semi-automated checks can be done with priorsense package

Using the priorsense package

Recently a package dedicated to prior sensibility analyses is launched

# install.packages("remotes")
remotes::install_github("n-kall/priorsense")

Key-idea: power-scaling (both prior and likelihood)

background reading:

YouTube talk:

Basic table with indices

First check is done by using the powerscale_sensitivity( ) function

  • column prior contains info on sensibility for prior (should be lower than 0.05)

  • column likelihood contains info on sensibility for likelihood (that we want to be high, ‘let our data speak’)

  • column diagnosis is a verbalization of potential problem (- if none)

powerscale_sensitivity(MarathonTimes_Mod2)
Sensitivity based on cjs_dist:
# A tibble: 4 × 4
  variable       prior likelihood diagnosis
  <chr>          <dbl>      <dbl> <chr>    
1 b_Intercept 0.000853     0.0851 -        
2 b_km4week   0.000512     0.0802 -        
3 b_sp4week   0.000370     0.0831 -        
4 sigma       0.00571      0.151  -

Visualization of prior sensibility

powerscale_plot_dens(
  powerscale_sequence(
    MarathonTimes_Mod2
    ),
  variable = c(
      "b_Intercept",
      "b_km4week",
      "b_sp4week"
    )
  )

Visualization of prior sensibility

powerscale_plot_quantities(
  powerscale_sequence(
    MarathonTimes_Mod2
    ),
  variable = c(
      "b_km4week"
      )
  )

Your Turn

  • Your data and model

  • Check the prior sensibility of your results

Back to top